E 83. 836 E93s EVEREH SPEECH OF HORACE EVEREH, OF VERMONT THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES SPEECH HORACE ETERETT, O F V E R M O N T iir.i.ivJ.iiEn !N THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, IN COMMITTEE OF THE AVHOI.F, THE INDIAN ANNUITY BILL, Friday, JiiNe 3, 1836. \VASHlNGTON: NATIONAL INTELLIGENCLR OFFICE. 1836. SPEECH. Mr. EVERETT said, lie had not expected to address the House on any subject connected with our Indian relations until a few days ;igo. The in- quiry into the causes of the Indian hostiUties had been l^rought before the (Jommittee on Indian Affairs, and the papers relating to it liad been referred to him for examination. He had Jntended before the close of the session to present his views in the shape of a report. When, however, this aniendment was adopted in that committee — an amendment placing at the disposal of the Executive more than a million of dollars, for (he removal of the whole Creek nation by force — in violation of an existing treaty, — he had felt him- self compelled to change his purpose, and to present his views to the House whenever that amendment should be considered. Should that pass, a re|)ort Wiiidd be to but little purpose. /J4e regretted tiiat this extraordinary appropriation should have been at- tached to an ordinary appropriation bill. It placed liim in the dilemma of being charged with obstructing the passage, of the bill, of the urgency of which no one was more sensible than himself;\or with the responsibility of permitting a measure to pass in silence, whicli^iu his conscience, he believed repugnant to our most sacred obligations, and of the most hazardous tenden- cy. He had desired that this appropriation should have been reported in a separate bill. Had it been so, this bill would have passed as soon as it was reported, and all delay would have been avoided. He did not, therefore, consider himself responsible for the delay. This was not the first time that important measures had been attempted to be carried through on the back of a general appropriation bill. The House was sufficiently forev-arned of the consequences. The blame would rest on liiose who first interposed the obstacle. Mr. E. said, th.e country being in fact in a state of war, without stopping to inquire by whose fault we had become involved in it, he had voted for every appropriation asked for defence — and as soon as it was asked. But the present question relates to the future — and to consequences which demand that it should not pass without investigation. iVIr. Everett requested the Clerk to read the twelfth article of the Creek tr^ty of the 24th of March, 1832. (*' Art. 12. The United States are desirous that the Creeks should remove to the country west of the Mississippi, and join their countrymen there; and for this purpose, it is agreed, that, as fast as the Creeks are prepared to emi- grate, they shall be removed at the expense of the United States, and shall receive subsistence while upon the journey, and lor one year after tiieir arri- val at their new homes: Provided, however. That this article shall nut be con- strued so as to compel any Creek Indian to emigrate, but they shall be free to go or stay, as they please.") This, Mr. Chairman, is the obligation we have assumed; this is the right we have guarantied to every Creek Indian — to go or sini/, as lie pleases. To render this right of value, to enable the Creeks to subsist themselves where they were, if they chose to remain, the treaty secured to ninety principal chiefs, each, 640 acres of land, and to every other head of a Creek family 320 acres. These reservations are their homes, on which they are entitled to remain. But from these, it is now proposed to remove them by force. The amendment proposes to remove 21,000 Creeks; that is the estimated number of the whole nation. It does not, in terms, propose to remove them by force; that purpose is, however, avowed explicitly in the letter of the Sec- retary of War to the committee, asking for the appropriation; and if the ap- propriation is granted, the Executive will consider himself authorized to use it, and will use it for the purpose for which it was asked. This letter is dated on the 19th of May, and states: " The state of affairs among the Creek In- " dians in Alabama has induced the President to direct the necessary meas- " ures to be taken for their removal. Heretofore, the instructions have been " in conformity with the treaty — to remove them as they were voluntarily " prepared to go. But actual hostilities have commenced, and it is essential " to their existence, as well as to the safety of the settlements in contact with " them, that they should be established in their country west of the Missis- " sippi, without delay. The right to remove them by force, if necessary, re- " suits from the attitude in which they have placed themselves, by the com- " mencement of hostilities," &-c. Here, then, Mr. Chairman, is our treaty obligation on the one hand, and the power claimed on the other. On what ground is it claimed? It can be claimed only on the ground that the treaty is dissolved by a war on the part of the Creek nation. An act of hostility by an individual, or one of the bands of the tribe, would not have that effect. No, sir; it must be a war be- tween the Creek nation and the United States; that only would dissolve the obligation of the treaty; and before this House sanctions the exercise of this high power — this war power, of removing the whole Creek nation by force — it should be satisfied that the Creek nation has made war upon us, as a na- tional act. On what evidence is this House called upon to act? On a letter from the Secretary of War to a committee, stating that actual hostilities have commenced, unaccompanied by any evidence of the character or extent of those hostilities. It gives us no facts, on which his declaration is founded, to enable tlie House to judge if the right to remove the Creeks by force is justi- fiable. Are we to act on this declaration? Are we to collect our facts from newspapers, private letters, or rumors? and if we should, what do they all amount to? From no source, that can be relied on, have I sufficient evi- dence to believe that, at the date of this letter, any white man had seen twenty-five Creeks embodied in arms. True, this is no evidence that more have not been in arms. But I should not be surprised if it should turn out that the whole number was then less than two hundred and fifty. There is, however, some negative testimony. I will refer the commit- tee to a semi-ofiicial publication in the Globe, of the 30th of May. It states that " Colonel Hogan wrote, on the 24i.h of April, that there was no " more disposition among the Creeks of the upper towns for hostilities than " there was among the citizens of Washington, and that he did not believe •' there was any such disposition among the Creeks of the lower towns." This letter was received here on the 5th, and " on that day Governor Clay " was again informed, that, should the Indians medifate hostilities, any force •' he might find necessary to call out for the protection of the inhabitants " would be received into the service of the United States. The same in- " formation and the same authority was given to Governor Schley, on the " 13th of May." This is the account of the Indian hostilities, as published on the 30th of May. The orders to the Governors of Alabama and Georgia do not refer to actual hostilities, but to meditated hosuWues. \ But, sir, if a state of war exists, why has no communication of the fact been made by the President? I do not go the length of saying there should be no communication between the heads of the Departments and the committees of this House. In matters of minor consequence, convenience requires it. But, sir, on questions involving a change of our relations with nations with whom we have treaties — on questions of peace and war — I hold that a head of De- partment and committees of the House are not the proper organs of commu- nication between the Executive and Congress. Such communication should be made by the President, and to both Houses, to whom it appertains to take order thereon. Measures new and important are not to be sprung upon the House through a report of a committee. The President is the only constitu- tional organ of communication between the Executive and Legislative Depart- ments. It is his constitutional duty, " from time to time, to give to Congress " information of the state of the Union, and to recommend such measures as •' he shall judge expedient." Sir, I would hold him to this duty — to this re- sponsibility. Jjf the House acts on its own motion, on its own information, it acts on its own responsibility. That responsibility, for one, I am not willing, in this instance, to assume. Mr. Chairman, I now offer an amendment, as a substitute for the amend- ment of the committee. I do not propose to lessen the appropriation, but to restrict its application. I do not make it a question of amount, but of prin- ciple. v^ I am willing to give to the Executive ample means to remove all the Indians, but p^ropose to divide the amount so that a part shall be applicable to the removal of those who please to go, and the residue to those who may be in arms; but that no part shall be applicable to those who are neither hos- tile nor willing to remove. This amendment will be applicable to the Semi- noles, as well as to the Creeks, and will also enable the Executive to resort to pacific, as well as warlike measures, for their removal. The amendment, as it came from the Senate, was for a removal of the Creeks who should voluntarily assent to go, and was based on the removal of 12,000. For this purpose, in addition to an unexpended balance of $155,000 It appropriated the sum of - - - - 348,230 503,230 To this, the committee of the House have added, under the call of the Secretary of War, on an estimate for remov- ing the residue of the nation, - - - - 675,320 And to this may be added, for the removal of the Seminoles, an unexpended balance of - - .$33,000 And an additional appropriation of - - 100,000 1,178,550 133,000 Making for the removal of the Creeks and Seminoles - $1,311,550 Should the substitute be adopted, the amendment will stand: " For the removal of Creek Indians, and their subsistence for one year, including sub- sistence for those recently removed, in addition to one hundred and fifty- five thousand dollars of former appropriations, three hundred and forty- eight thousand two hundred and thirty dollars, under the \2th article of the Creek treaty of 1832. 6 " For holding trccitus with the hostile Indians cast of the Jlississippi river, and for their removal west of (hat river, six hundred and seventy-five thousand three hundred and tiventy dollars.'*^ Mr. Cliairnian, this presents the important question in relation to all the hostile Indians, Creeks and Seininoles: — Shall force be the only means of etTtcting their removal? I propose a pacific measure; and by the term in the a[)proprialioH, "/or holding treaties,'''' to indicate to the Executive the o|)inion of this Honst; — in the hope that it will not be disregarded. y xlt seems to be taken for granted by some gentlemen that we cannot, con- sistently with our national honor, hold treaties, or even attempt a pacification of hostile Indians. "^ It is said by the gentleman from Alabama, (Mr. Lawler,) that they nmst be tchippcd before they can be removed. What, sir! send whipped Indians west of the Mississip|)i! Of tliat I shall have a word to say hereafter. Our honor! JAVHiat of honor liave we gained already in our attempt to whip theSeminoles'? Aiid what of honor would be^ained, if, by extermina- tion, we make a grand finale of the huslile tribes? But, sir, this is also a question of interest. I will thank the Clerk to state the amount already ap- propriated on account of these Indian hostilities — [$2,620,000, besides ra- tions to the starving inhabitants] — more will be immediately required. Add to this the expense of another camtjaign — of an arm}' oi" 5,000. And to this, the amount of the losses of the inhabitants of Florida and Alabama — some millions more. This, though an individual loss, is not the less a loss to the country. Possibly it may become a direct national loss. On that question I do not intend to commit myself; but, sir, if the sufferers claim in- demnity, they will, as their only ground, base their claims on the fact that their loss was occasioned (to use the mildest phrase) by an improvident act of the Government. In addition to all this, look to the loss uf human life. (-Xt is evident, sir, that the Seminole war was the immediate cause of the Creek hostilities. Other causes have no doubt concurred — causes of irrita- tion, producing a pre-<.disposition to hostility, called into action by the suc- cess of the Seminolesy What shall be done? Shall we fight it out to the last, or attempt a pacification? Sir, in selecting our course, much will depei'.d on the answer to the question, " is our quarrel justV'' And it is time this ques- tion was answered. In answering this (|nestion, I shall take occasion to inquire into ihf; causes of the Seminole war. I shall stop where the war commenced, leav- ing it for otliers to examine into the manner in which it has been conducted. 1 pass this over to the military gentlemen of the House — to the Committee on Military Aflairs — to institute the proper inquiry. 1 have no doubt they will do their duty. Preliminary to (he investigation, I will suggest Us:o considerations, which should be borne in mind during the investigation. UCJio first is, the unequal terms on which we always treat with the Indian tribes — our superior intelli- gence — their necessities — the fact that our treaties are, as they say, while men's treaties, made in our lanauage, translated by our interpreters, and by them im- perfectly understood and imperfeclly remembered. The other is, that we are our own historians — we tell the whole story — they, |iarticidarly the Sem- inoles, were refused permission to send a delegation here to lell their part of the story. In reply to their application, they v{t'\X' told, " This made the President angry ^ From considerations such as ihe*^, in all questions of doubt, proper allowances should be made in their favori I will also notice some things of minor importance, which may have had an unfavorable influence: L- The eager desire of the whites to obtain their land. — General Eaton, in liis letter of the 8lii oi" March, 1835, says — " Tlie people here want the lands on which they (the Seminoles) reside; and they will urge a rcmavA, fas uut nefas; and tiie Rig Swamp, whicli, in tlie treaty, is declared to be tlie first of llieir country tfi_be vacated, is of high repute; and it is that on which the eyes of speculators are fixed. ""^ LJThe unprincipled desire to obtain their negroes. — General Thompson, in his letter of the 28th of October, 1834, says — vJijrhere are many very likely negroes in this nation; some of the whites in the adja- cent settlements manifest a restless desire to obtain thenjjj.' and I have no doubt that Indian-raised negroes now in possession of the whites, some of tlie negroes in the nation, with some of tlie Indians, have been induced, by bribery or otherwise, to stir up hostility among tiie Indians to t!ie intended emigration, for the purpose of detain- ing the negroes here until the territorial jurisdiction shall be extended over the Indian country, so as to enable fraudulent claimants to prosecute their claims in the Territorial coijrts, Scc.'Vi \_The opposing influence of the negroes, excited by the fear of their beiiig sold to slave-dealers. — General Thompson, in his letter of the 27th of April, 1835, a letter of great interest, says — •' Application was made to me this morning for permission to purchase negroes of the Seminole Indians, under a letter from tlie Office of Indian Affairs, addressed to General Call, in whicli the Commissioner says, as there is no law prohibiting the sale of slaves by Indians, tliere is no necessity for the interference of the Department to allow the Indians a privilege wiiich they already have.'*^ "The negroes in tlie nation dread the idea of being transferred from their present st7*Te'"of ease and comparati\ig^ libertj, to bondage and hard labor, under overseers on sugar and cotton plantations.^ They have always had a great influence on the Indians. They live in villages, separate, and, in many cases, remote from their owners, enjoying equal liberty with their owners, willi the single exception that the slave supplies his owner annually, from the product of his little field, with corn in projjorlion to the amount of the crop; in no instance tliat has come to my knowledge, exceeding ten busliels: the residue is considered the property of the slave. Many of these slaves have stocks of horses, cows, and hogs, with which the Indian owner never assumes tlie right to intermeddle. I am tluis particular on this |)(>int, that you may understand the true cause of the abhorrence of the negroes of even the idea of anj' change; and tlie indulgence so extended by the owner to the slave will enable you to credit the assertion that an Indian would almost as soon sell his child as his slave, except wheTi in a state of intoxication." On this occasion, sir, General Thompson did his duty — he refused permis- sion to the applicants to purchase slaves, ur to say any tiling on the subject. The answer to this letter is not among the papers in my possession. In this investigation, I shall endeavor to confirie myself to our own record. I regret, sir, that the documents just laid on your table are not printed, and iu the hands of all the members, that they might go along with me, page by page. I desired that tlie discussion siioidd bo delayed a day or two ibr that purpose. But it is the pleasure of the House that the discussion shall now proceed. cl_"^n the Slh of January, 1821, the Creek treaty of Indian Springs was con- cluded. At that time tlie Seminole band was a component part of the Creek jialion. To this treaty I shall have occasion to refer hereal'ler. \ ■ — On the ISth of September, 1823, the treaty of Camp MouTme was con- cluded with the Seminoles, they having then separated from the Creeks. By this treaty, we engaged to pay them annuities for twenty years, and guaran- tied to them tlieir narrow limits. They were restricted irom tlie sea-coasf, and confined to the hammocks and swamps, which they are now defending to the last drop of blood. Miserable as their country is, they cling to it with the grasp of death. This treaty, unless abrogated by a subsequent treaty, was an existing treaty at the commencement of the present war. 8 ^ On the 9ih of May, 1832, the Seminole treaty of Payne's Landing was concluded. The Seminoles have alleged that it was forced upon them. But, sir, in our own story I find no evidence of the fact; all that I find is, that at that time they were in a state of starvation; we deemed it a fit occasion for holding a treat}'. We were not, however, the cause of their famine; nor were we accountable for its consequences. We did no more than to take all due advantage of ihe fact. I ask the Clerk to read the preamble and the 7ih article: "The Seminole Indians, re^^arding with just respect the solicitude manifested by the President of the United States for the improvement of their condition, by recom- mending their removal to a country more suitable to their habits and wants than the one they at present occupy in the Territory of Florida, are willing that their confiden- tial chiefs, Jumper, Fuch-a-lus-ti-co-had-jo, Charley Emarlla, Coi-hadjo, Holati- Emartla, Yaha-hadjo, Sam Jones, accompanied by their faithful interpreter, Abraham, should be sent, at the expense of the United States, as early as convenient, to examine the country assigned to the Creeks west of the Mississippi river; and should they be satisfied with the character of that country, and of the favorable disposition of the Creeks to rt-unile witii the Seminoles as one people, the articles of the compact and agreement herein stipulated at Payne's Landing, on the Ocklewaha river, this ninth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, between James Gadsden for and in behalf of the United States, and the undersigned chief's and head men for and in behalf of the Seminole Indians, shall be binding on the respective parties." "Article vii. The Seminole Indians will remove within three (3) years after the ratification of this agreement, and the expenses of their removal shall be defrayed by the United States; and such subsistence shall also be furnished them, for a term not ex- ceeding twelve (12) months, after their arrival at their new residence, as in tiie opin- ion of the President their numbers and circumstances may require; the emigration to commence as early as practicable in the year eighteen hundred and thirty-three (1833;) and with those Indians occupying the Big Swamp, and other parts of the country, be- yond the limits as defined in the second article of the treaty concluded at Camp Moul- trie creek, so that the whole of that proportion of the Seminoles may be removed within the year aforesaid; and the remainder of the tribe, in about equal proportions, during the subsequent years of eighteen hundred and thirty-four and five, (1834 and 1835.)" In relation to this treaty, I shall now, Mr. Chairman, endeavor to sustain the three following positions: I. That the treaty never became obligatory on the Seminoles. II. That the Government have attempted to execute it contrary to their own interpretation. III. That they have attempted to execute it by an act of war, before the commission of any hostile act on the part of the Seminoles. If I sustain these positions, I shall have shown, satisfactorily, the causes of the Seminole war; and answered the question, "is our quarrel just"!" The treaty of Payne's Landing never became obligatory on the Semi- noles, Z' 1. Because the condition precedent, on which alone it could become oblig- atory, was not fulfilled. That condition, in substance, was, that the Seminole delegation should, after visiting the western country, be satisfied with the character of the coun- / try to which they proposed to emigrate; and, also, of the favorable disposi- / tion of the Creeks (who were entitled to the country, and with whom it was proposed they should hereafter reside,) to re-unite with the Seminoles as one people. The delegation visited the western country, and, before their return, or hav- ing any communication with their tribe, on the 28th March, 1833, at Fort Gib- son, signed articles with our commissioners, by which they expressed themselves "7 / satisfied with the character of the country, and of the favorable disposition of the Creeks to unite with the Seminoles as one people. This, on the face of it, with the exception of the change of the word V7iite for re-uniic, is a literal declaration of what was required by the treaty. But was it a substan- tial compliance? was it an act of which, in good faith, we ought to avail our- selves] Is the complaint of the Indians without cause? General Thompson, in his letter of the 28th October, 1834, states it in their own language: " Juni- " per says, they agreed at Payne's Landing to go and examine the country; *' but they were not bound to move to it, until the nation should agree to it, " after the return of the delegation." The delegation were their confidential chiefs — the agents of the Seminoles; or, if you please, umpires authorized to determine for them. But, sir, were not the Seminoles to be heard before them, as well as the United States? They were not heard. The delegation went to visit the west, and tiiere, be- fore returning to consult the Seminoles, surrounded by the whiles, signed their determination. The Seminoles complained, and with justice, that the de- termination was made on an ex parte hearing. On their return, the delegation reported that they were satisfied with the country, and the Creeks there. But their objection was to the hostile disposition of the surrounding tribes — that they saw scalps brought in. They were then told, treaties would be made with the hostile tribes, of which they would be informed. Sir, they claimed a right to be heard, before their delegation made a final decision. But, sir, this is not the most material part of tlie objection. A part of the condition was, that the delegation should be satisfied with the disposition of the Creeks — of the Creek nation to re-unite with them as one people. I now ask the attention of the committee to the facts. By a treaty concluded with the Creek nation east of the Mississippi, on the 24th March, 1832, almost cotemporanoous with the Seminole treaty, the country west of the Mississippi was secured to the Creek nation. The emi- gration commenced; and it appears, by a document annexed to the report ' of the Committee of Indian Affairs of February, 1834, that the whole number of the Creeks who had emigrated to the west was only 2,459, while the num- ber remaining east was 22,638. The assent of the delegation to the supple- mental treaty, declaring themselves satisfied, was yielded on the 28th March, 1833; they had, therefore, consulted only this sn)all portion west. This was ! known to our commissioners at the lime, and to our Government before the ratification of the treaty. This is no technical ground of objection. But a consequence resulted, that formed a substantial reason why the Seminoles should decline to emigrate. While a component part of the Creek nation, the Seminoles were a sepa- rate band, and, as such, were united with the Creeks. The treaty of Payne's Landing contemplated a reunion — not an amalgamation. By the treaty concluded with the Creeks west, on the 14lh February, 1833, and the sup- plemental Seminole treaty of 28th March, J 833, the Seminoles were to be located by themselves, and a tract of land was designated for their location. Their rights to any location depended entirely on the assent of the Creek nation. The Creeks west assented for themselves only; but, in relation to this, the Creeks east were neither consulted nor informed. The fact of this treaty of the Creeks west was concealed from them. Perhaps the term con- cealed is too strong: it was, however, not communicated to them. These, as inferences, are drawn from a document which I will now ask the Clerk to read. It is a letter from General Eaton to the Secretary of War, of the 8th March, 1835, to a portion of which I will ask the attention of the committee. \ 10 "There is anollier difficulty in the minds of these people: a separate tract, out of the Creek lands, jias been set apart for their homes. Tliere is a ratified treaty in your ofiice, made by General Stokes, ElKwortii, and Schermerhorn, with the Creeks, whicli authorizes the location. JVhile negotiating with the Indians last year, at "Wash- ington, I inulersto